Do we need to eat meat to be healthy?

[John99]

humans are omnivores. Get over it already.

 

[thinking]

as far as I know it is the consumption of protein , meat , that grew our brain to where it is now

 

[thinking]

now the kind of meat consumed is really the story

red , poultry , organic

 

[WillNever]

In fact the longest-lived people in the world are a group of religious-type vegans somewhere out in California. Now, I think we can safely say that how long you live is just about the best indicator of what is or is not healthy.

So the answer to this question is no. Meat isn't necessary. There are people who are doing better than most WITHOUT it.

 

[thinking]

In fact the longest-lived people in the world are a group of religious-type vegans somewhere out in California. Now, I think we can safely say that how long you live is just about the best indicator of what is or is not healthy.

So the answer to this question is no. Meat isn't necessary. There are people who are doing better than most WITHOUT it.

how do you know that these people are the longest lived in the world ?

protein is important though no matter how you get it

 

[lightgigantic]

Keep in mind that there is no moral superiority to vegetarian diets - they are fully as destructive of environments, cruel to the living beings of the planet, etc.

nevertheless the video links on the peta web site warrant a warning

For instance a farmworker trodding on bushel of wheat doesn't seem to be composed of the same depravity as a worker in a pig farm squealing with delight while slamming a stick up the vagina of a sow

The spread of industrial plant agriculture, the banishment of mixed farming to the margins and the installment of row crop monoculture with fossil fuel based fertilizer at the center of our food supply, is the plague of our times, not the eating of meat. The plow has done far more harm than the sword, to the ecosystems of the world.

I'm pretty sure that a majority of the energy resources of the world are equipped for an industrial lifestyle, of which diet (regardless of one being a vegetarian or carnivore) is but a minuscule part .

The only reason that land reshaped for agriculture gets highlighted (and even then, the meat industry depends on the agriculture industry for providing fodder stocks) is because there is precious little of it left after you slap housing, highrises , roads , supermarkets and industrial complexes all over the place

 

[thinking]

still need protein to be healthy

 

[lightgigantic]

still need protein to be healthy

I guess all that needs to be answered now are the moral imperatives we use to acquire such a need

 

[parmalee]

The spread of industrial plant agriculture, the banishment of mixed farming to the margins and the installment of row crop monoculture with fossil fuel based fertilizer at the center of our food supply, is the plague of our times, not the eating of meat. The plow has done far more harm than the sword, to the ecosystems of the world.

True, but (quoting Fraggle Rocker from this thread):

It's beef that's resource-inefficient. Dairy farming is actually a reasonable way to grow food, especially if you let your cows eat low-quality grass instead of feeding them protein-rich alfalfa and fish meal. I've been told that a dairy cow produces ten times more human food per unit of feed than beef cattle.

 

[parmalee]

Orignally Posted by iceaura
In my experience, a vegetarian's personal assessment of health frequently conflicts with my impression of their health. To mention one extreme: I met a woman who had a vegetarian Great Dane she insisted was perfectly healthy - the Humane Society eventually stepped in, and the pathetic animal enjoyed a happier second half of its life. She was also healthy, by her own account - but frail, easily tired, and eventually (currently) suffering from early onset osteoporosis.

One could just as easily say this of omnivores (and those rare carnivores--I've actually known a couple) as well. People suck at self-assessment, especially as regards health.

Consider the findings of Gallup polls, regarding self-assement of one's physical health:

80 percent of Americans consistently describe themselves as being in "excellent" or "good" physical health. Yet 66 percent of American adults are overweight or obese (roughly half being obese). (source) And non-vegetarians are far more likely to be overweight or obsese than are vegetarians:

Researchers examined the health records of more than 55,000 healthy women participating in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. They looked at the body mass index (BMI) of semi-vegetarians (who eat some meat, dairy, and eggs), lacto-vegetarians (who
consume milk but not meat or eggs), vegans (who consume no animal products), and omnivores (who eat all foods). ... All the vegetarian women had a lower risk of being overweight or obese than did the omnivorous women. Specifically, the prevalence of overweight or obesity (BMI over 25) was 40 percent among omnivores, 29 percent among both semi-vegetarians and vegans, and 25 percent among lacto-vegetarians. All three
vegetarian groups had about half the risk of overweight or obesity as omnivores.

http://www.lifedynamix.com/articles/Weight-Loss/Vegetarian.html

In my experience, I've found vegetarians to be, on average, far more healthy and active than non-vegetarians. And my own personal experience: I've been vegetarian since the age of 4 (at that age, it was more a product of extreme food aversions rather than an informed choice) and while small and undernourished as a child (a number of factors), I've been in excellent physical health for my entire adult life--I bike about 15 miles a day, and have done countless tours in which I bike 80 to 100 miles a day (pulling a heavy trailer with a dog in it), and I regularly schlep about 200+ pounds of green coffee beans and heavy musical equipment. Apart from repeated kidney stones, all of my health problems are neurological in nature--no other physical ailments.

 

[Anti-Flag]

I wouldn't say we all need meat as some cultures have other natural alternatives available that provide the same nutrients. I wouldn't recommend vitimin supplements though until long term tests have been done.
I also don't see any good reason to give meat up either.

 

[John Connellan]

One In my experience, I've found vegetarians to be, on average, far more healthy and active than non-vegetarians.

Well I am a non vegetarian and...well...you're probably right

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

In my experience, I've found vegetarians to be, on average, far more healthy and active than non-vegetarians.

Don't commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, "correlation implies causation." Vegetarians tend to be far more health-conscious than the rest of us, often to the point of obsession. It's no surprise that they take better care of themselves in all aspects of life, not just nutrition, and therefore have fewer health problems.

I eat meat at least three times a day but I take good care of myself. I'm strong and healthy for 66. I think "industrially produced human feed," with its overdose of salt and its transfatty acids, is a far greater health risk than the quadrant of the Food Pyramid where one happens to prefer to dine.

 

[parmalee]

Don't commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, "correlation implies causation." Vegetarians tend to be far more health-conscious than the rest of us, often to the point of obsession. It's no surprise that they take better care of themselves in all aspects of life, not just nutrition, and therefore have fewer health problems.

Good point. I suppose what I was getting at was that a vegetarian diet needn't require any more consideration (to maintain optimal health) than a non-vegetarian diet. Rather, for either diet to be conducive to good health, some education does seem necessary--along with other considerations, i.e. an appropriate level of activity, exercise, etc. A vegan diet on the other hand, does require considerably more attentiveness.

 

[WillNever]

how do you know that these people are the longest lived in the world ?

protein is important though no matter how you get it

You do not need meat to obtain protein, and since this thread is concerned with what you "need" to be healthy, we can just throw that assertion out the window.

There is myriad of articles on the longest lived group of people:
http://books.google.com/books?id=zO...q=california adventists live longest&f=false

http://www.sdabusiness.com/Articles...a-aventists-are-americas-blue-zone_052708.htm

http://www.oxveg.veggroup.org/articles/1114.html

Clearly, meat isn't necessary for good health -- not when the healthiest among us eat no meat at all.

 

[iceaura]

Good point. I suppose what I was getting at was that a vegetarian diet needn't require any more consideration (to maintain optimal health) than a non-vegetarian diet.

It does, though - especially if one is pregnant or nursing, but also in general.

I've known two vegetarians to land in the hospital, and several more to be refused by blood banks, for anemia.

There was an entire article in IIRC Scientific American about iron deficiency - the anecdote of the economic benefits from free iron pills to the laborers in meat-poor areas, like limes in the old British Navy, came from it.

 

[parmalee]

It does, though - especially if one is pregnant or nursing, but also in general.

But wouldn't you agree, in affluent, industrialized nations at the very least--and the U.S. most especially, that the problems faced by meat eaters are every bit as significant as those faced by vegetarians? Especially as regards those meat eaters who put little or no consideration into what they put in their bodies.

I do agree as regards pregnant and lactating women, but this can still--in most instances--be addressed by education.

I'm by no means suggesting that a vegetarian diet is necessarily any more healthy than an omnivore diet, just that it can be every bit as healthy--and in a world where one can step out one's door and gorge oneself on vastly substandard fast food fare with little or no reflection, the "difficulties" of either diet are comparable.

 

[parmalee]

And on the matter of cost, I would be interested to see a comprehensive study comparing the respective costs of a vegetarian diet vs. an omnivore diet, on a calorie/nutritient value per dollar basis. Found this, but it's by no means comprehensive--and the study was done by the Seventh Day Adventists, so a bias might affect the findings anyway:

VEGETARIANS save 20 per cent at the checkout and have sixfold lower greenhouse gas emissions than carnivores, a new study shows. ...

The findings show it costs $508 a week to feed four adults on a traditional meat diet. A reduced meat diet costs $418 a week, while a vegetarian diet costs $394.

"A massive 20 per cent reduction in costs can be achieved by maintaining the vegetarian diet," the company said in a statement.

The analysis also showed the plant-based diet used 50 per cent less water, led to 12 times less land being cleared and had six times lower greenhouse gas emissions than a meat rich diet similar to the CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet.

It also contained almost 50 per cent lower saturated fat and 25 per cent more fibre and folate.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24384992-12377,00.html

 

[TBodillia]

You do not need meat to obtain protein, and since this thread is concerned with what you "need" to be healthy, we can just throw that assertion out the window.

There is myriad of articles on the longest lived group of people:
http://books.google.com/books?id=zO...q=california adventists live longest&f=false

http://www.sdabusiness.com/Articles...a-aventists-are-americas-blue-zone_052708.htm

http://www.oxveg.veggroup.org/articles/1114.html

Clearly, meat isn't necessary for good health -- not when the healthiest among us eat no meat at all.

I don't know how much I'd trust that survey & story, when the 2002 church survey says only 35% of its members practice vegetarianism. The longevity is partly attributed to the non-smoking & non-drinking...but if only 35% are vegetarians, how many are actually non-smokers & drinkers?

And I forgot John Harvey Kellogg, of Kellogg's cereal fame, was an Adventist AND a nut. He never had sex with his wife, never "consummated his marriage". All of his children were adopted. And he didn't believe in bowel movements. Enemas were the way to go. Every morning at his sanitarium, a "guest" would receive a small vat of yogurt. They would eat half and the rest would be shot up their ass!

When I was in the Army, I was always amazed at how many of the heavy smokers were able to run 2 miles in under 11 minutes. And, they were meat eaters too. I kept wondering just how fast they would be if they didn't smoke.